Aim-FOV/Zoom & IFF [Long]
- Thread starter Hoak
- Start date
Hoak/O'Shanon
I hope this ends it, because all I see is a bunch of baby's flamebaiting each other, we don't need that here, you are not adding anything.
stop it now!
I hope this ends it, because all I see is a bunch of baby's flamebaiting each other, we don't need that here, you are not adding anything.
stop it now!
Last time I checked, having your vision divided into pixels at a range you would otherwise be able to see someone at is highly unrealistic. Who cares if RO originally had it or not? Mistakes should be fixed. It won't change the overall feeling or 'uniqueness' of RO.
Besides, we're (or at least I'm) not talking about a very powerful zoom...like 1.3x at the most.
Besides, we're (or at least I'm) not talking about a very powerful zoom...like 1.3x at the most.
agree... with Rikharthu.... look down the screen... ppl 2 blocks can easily be identified (clothing wise) while in game the appear as a blob of pixels... the zoom will fix that... i also think that it should put no a button... because i don't need to zoom in on a guy face that 10ft from me... limits ur peripheral vision
Zooming would not be a nice feature. O'Shannon is right with what he says, Ro has its gameplay drastic changes like zooming with the ironsight are bad m'kay, plus I never heard players having problem shooting at high ranges in RO.
Sure sometimes you don't see the guys hiding at 200 meters but it's part of the game.
Plus I find it awesome when I use the binoculars, locate the ennemies, and shot them down with the mg
Sure sometimes you don't see the guys hiding at 200 meters but it's part of the game.
Plus I find it awesome when I use the binoculars, locate the ennemies, and shot them down with the mg
I dont mind if there is some form of zoom, not for a focus effect of the eyes or whatever but simply because you cant see that detailed as you should on a monitor. But if its added the ability to zoom should not only be there when you enter the ironsights like with killingfloor, as scouting an area while not in ironsights should then be possible as well.
Although i think that no zoom like ro will be what i feel the most comfortable with.
Although i think that no zoom like ro will be what i feel the most comfortable with.
Last edited:
I think some of y'all should read the posts made by dslyecxi in a previous thread about this same subject. IS zoom is realistic in the sense that it gives you the sight picture you would have in real life. I have shot thousands of rounds out of guns and seeing what you shoot at in real life is much much easier than in video games, especially RO
Countering one issue (unrealistic FOV) with another (Zoom) is not making it more realistic. The way Dslyecxi is arguing "fixes" the FOV when aiming. Change to a smaller FOV is perceived as zoom. Is it realistc? Far from it.
To this day, no human eye developed the ability to enlarge objects by focusing on them. Is a 90
To this day, no human eye developed the ability to enlarge objects by focusing on them. Is a 90
Ive not really read all the text as im lazy buuuuut im with Worluk and Oshannon.
You want to zoom when you go to iron sight as its realistic . . . im amazed. If only I knew about realism zooming eyes, the RO Realism community would have modded magical eyes a long time ago.
Perhaps a more useful suggestion would be when you go into IS that the area around the IS reticle is Clear vision and the outside FOV is blurred (im sure ive seen this in a game but cant remember which one). This would allow YOU to FOCUS more and not let a computer aided zoom to find the enemy.
You want to zoom when you go to iron sight as its realistic . . . im amazed. If only I knew about realism zooming eyes, the RO Realism community would have modded magical eyes a long time ago.
Perhaps a more useful suggestion would be when you go into IS that the area around the IS reticle is Clear vision and the outside FOV is blurred (im sure ive seen this in a game but cant remember which one). This would allow YOU to FOCUS more and not let a computer aided zoom to find the enemy.
More superficial aesthetic realism, does not make for more functional realism; in this case a lot less. Add to that any grounds for an argument for more aesthetic realism are completely subjective as there is no 'scale realism' what so ever in the FPP in FPS games, period.
Designing for functional realism with regard to what you can do, and how a game gets played, is what Dslyecxi is talking about... But that point was made on the old Mod forums, the RRO thread Rock has linked, and in the topic post -- and continues to be ignored...
I suppose 'out of sight out of mind' and you can pretend RO plays as realistically as it looks, but then what difference is there between RO and DOD, or RO and BF 1942 sans a paint job?
Designing for functional realism with regard to what you can do, and how a game gets played, is what Dslyecxi is talking about... But that point was made on the old Mod forums, the RRO thread Rock has linked, and in the topic post -- and continues to be ignored...
I suppose 'out of sight out of mind' and you can pretend RO plays as realistically as it looks, but then what difference is there between RO and DOD, or RO and BF 1942 sans a paint job?
Explain again how auto zooming rifles are more realistic??
EDIT: If i understand that old post correctly, all views should be zoomed. If zooming is needed at IS stage of play then why not when nonIS??
EDIT: If i understand that old post correctly, all views should be zoomed. If zooming is needed at IS stage of play then why not when nonIS??
Last edited:
Explain what you don't understand about the differenece between aesthetic and functional realism? Do you think RO's space craft HUD is realistic? Describe How? Do you think someone else's hands on the screen is realistic? Do you think anamorphic and scale distortions in the double digets is realistic? Please, explain how?Explain again how auto zooming rifles are more realistic??
Well there's a good argument for going either way, but generally as far as game design goes it's felt that higher level interfaces and simplicity are perfered by integrating zoom with aiming. Some feel it's also aesthetically more consistent especially if nonlinar panamorphic distortion is used making the zoom effect virtually unnoticeable.
Most simulators offer both...
Nobody knows what will happen in rohos. But they said in the article that they studied the workings of the eye.
check the black text box on the top left: http://www.pcgamer.com/pdfs/RedOrchestra.pdf
Your eye can see 180plus degrees, and focus at 13 degrees. But that does not say that the most realistic option is to give a high fov and a low fov option as your eye does it all at the same time and not only when you press a button or go into ironsight.
Going with an average out of it is just as realistic as a 2 staged option, in both cases your depth perception is probably off.
Its just the same as saying respawning isnt realistic while playing in a battlefield with 8 people isnt realistic either. There is no definite answer to what is more realistic, in the end it is a personal opinion what will make you feel more realistic in the game filled battlefields or giving more importance to live. Giving the real abilities of the eye but in a staged method (aka zoom), or taking the best fitting average.
There is no solution that is more realistic, both are equally realistic or unrealistic. Personally i prefer a non staged view , and if there is a staged view a subtile one (unlike in arma) while still being able to trigger it not only in ironsights.
-----
Now what i wonder is what would it look like if the image is equally zoomed everywhere on the screen if you guys have never noticed in most games. If you view an item in the corner of your screen its like 4 times as big as if you look at the same item in the center of your screen. What would it look like fishbowl like or whatever if it was the other way around.
check the black text box on the top left: http://www.pcgamer.com/pdfs/RedOrchestra.pdf
Now the question is how it will be implemented.
Your eye can see 180plus degrees, and focus at 13 degrees. But that does not say that the most realistic option is to give a high fov and a low fov option as your eye does it all at the same time and not only when you press a button or go into ironsight.
Going with an average out of it is just as realistic as a 2 staged option, in both cases your depth perception is probably off.
Its just the same as saying respawning isnt realistic while playing in a battlefield with 8 people isnt realistic either. There is no definite answer to what is more realistic, in the end it is a personal opinion what will make you feel more realistic in the game filled battlefields or giving more importance to live. Giving the real abilities of the eye but in a staged method (aka zoom), or taking the best fitting average.
There is no solution that is more realistic, both are equally realistic or unrealistic. Personally i prefer a non staged view , and if there is a staged view a subtile one (unlike in arma) while still being able to trigger it not only in ironsights.
-----
Now what i wonder is what would it look like if the image is equally zoomed everywhere on the screen if you guys have never noticed in most games. If you view an item in the corner of your screen its like 4 times as big as if you look at the same item in the center of your screen. What would it look like fishbowl like or whatever if it was the other way around.
Last edited:
Again, you're discussing a game realism from an aesthetic perspective; obviously it's not aesthetically realistic to have zoom in a game. On the other hand it's not in the least functionally realistic to only be able to see as far as someone that's legally blind with myopia, and neither is the outcome as far as how the game plays.
No. Again, you may over generalize and regard it as aesthetically as realistic as offing Zoom, but it's no where near as functionally realistic.
Incorrect. That is an argument comparison based on a difference in kind, type and scale.
Incorrect. There is a definitive answer to what is more realistic if you qualify your design goal; obviously if aesthetic realism is your only or primary concern, and DOD game-play is fine, no zoom is required. But if functional realism is a primary criterion of your design in how a game plays, some implementation of zoom is essential.
Incorrect (see above).
The camera is equally zoomed everywhere, what you're seeing is a function of panamorphic flat projection distortion -- any FOV above 45
Last edited:
Your issue is you find your own opinion as truth, having to click a button or perform an action to be able to focus somewhere, is a functional issue. its not purely aestetical as in that it doesnt look nice. It changes the function in a way from how you can normally use your eye.
My goal is use eyes in the same way as in reallife, and both options are equally flawed in function in my opinion. One is flawed in that its staged so its either one or the other you can view at one time, the other is flawed as it takes an average. Your opinion can be different but its no fact, as you cannot say for everybody what model they percieve as a more realistic representation of their eyes, which was what the example with the respawns was all about. Realism is percieved different from person to person, whenever something cannot be done exactly concessions must be made.
My goal is use eyes in the same way as in reallife, and both options are equally flawed in function in my opinion. One is flawed in that its staged so its either one or the other you can view at one time, the other is flawed as it takes an average. Your opinion can be different but its no fact, as you cannot say for everybody what model they percieve as a more realistic representation of their eyes, which was what the example with the respawns was all about. Realism is percieved different from person to person, whenever something cannot be done exactly concessions must be made.
Last edited:
'Your issue is' you have difficulty discerening the difference between opinion, fact, and truth, and appear to argue from existential epistomology.
Something is only aesthetic or functional in a context or in reference to something else -- a premise. The premise of this thread makes that criterion explicit: 'game-play'. In that context how someone's eyes function in the real world and the game is not merely secondary, it's irrelevant. This isn't an opinion, it's simple logical design, based on an explicit premise; and one that you obviously aren't interested in or don't understand.
You are certainly welcome to your goals and opinions, obviously as is Tripwire -- but whether something is flawed in terms of function depends on the premise of what that function is, and the premise of this thread is not scale human visual anatomy, the psychology of vision -- it's game-play, more specifically: realistic maneuver fire tactics and ranged combat with rifles in large scale settings.
I'm not repeating myself, I'm rearticulating an argument you either do not understand, rigorously ignore, and rephrase incorrectly which may mislead others. Neither am I in the least interested in 'persuading' you or anyone like you about anything; unless I'm mistaken you don't make decisions about what will be implemented in Red Orchestra, and you give every appearance ov being an Existentialist so I have no concern or interest what so ever in changing your mind, or objectifying your thinking.
I am interested in making a clear presentation, that anyone with even modest knowledge of game design, deductive, and inductive logic can understand. A logical argument based on a concrete axiomatic premise, that has been tested and proven is not an 'opinion' or preference, you may change or subject your premise to a preference, but logical conclusions are not opinions.
The premise of the topic post of this thread is realism in how the game plays, not how you see it; there are games nearly a decade older then Red Orchestra that play far more realistically with regard to use of weapons and tactics.
If Heroes Of Stalingrad continues with the current emphasis on granular aesthetic features and functions that have no real outcome with respects to the realistic tactical functional depth the game offers with respect to how it's actually played, and RO continues to play like DOD clone with BF2 capture and hold -- I'm fine with that.
But for me and I'm sure many players like me that have left the RO building due to boredom with RRO's monotonous arcade point-blank, speed-spam, death match game-play -- will find Heroes Of Stalingrad little different without at least some options that fundamentally effect game-play.
"aesthetic or functional"
You enjoy repeating these words over and over in the hope that we all suddenly agree that auto zooming space rifles are the way forward.
We are all indeed entitled to our opinions, and I understand yours fully, however, I do not agree with them.
You enjoy repeating these words over and over in the hope that we all suddenly agree that auto zooming space rifles are the way forward.
We are all indeed entitled to our opinions, and I understand yours fully, however, I do not agree with them.
I assure you I have no such hope, or even aspiration.
Yes, you have made your disagreement abundantly clear, but I am not expressing an 'opinion' merely a preference, unlike some trolling here, and that you miss that point makes it obvious you don't 'understand fully' if at all... But you are welcome to 'enjoy repeating' that belief and opinion...We are all indeed entitled to our opinions, and I understand yours fully, however, I do not agree with them.
I think you will find that I understand fully, as your concept is not hard to grasp. The way you explain it needs worked on but the initial idea is simple.
No auto zooming spaces rifles with perceived realism here guv'na.
Pretty hard to 'find' as you've offered no explination for your objections that shows you undertand anything, including your own arguments.
LOL.
Oh yes, now there's an intelligent comparison 'space rifles' that 'needs worked on' -- if this is more of the 'aim-zoom is not realistic' swill, I wonder how you even remotely consider:
Last edited: